Why would I object to a warrant? If he thinks there is information relevant to something he has been tasked to investigate, his job requires him to ask for a warrant.
Or maybe Comey is just responding to requests from the congressional committee for all related material?
I mention that because, AIUI, it was a member of that committee that went public with it. (Or, more accurately, with a misrepresentation of what Comey's letter actually said.)
A couple of quick disagreements, plus some other remarks:
How about this - it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate, at trial, with vigorous prosecution and defense, whether or not Hillary is guilty of breaking the law. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
Comey doesn't think there's enough evidence to take it to court.
If someone accuses you of (say) treason, you don't automatically go to court. The FBI decides whether the accuser has enough credibility to warrant an investigation, and if so, they use the investigation to decide whether there is enough evidence to take you to court. (Maybe an additional step with a Grand Jury - don't know how that works on Federal charges.)
Maybe she should have gone to court. Opinions differ. I'm more inclined to accept Comey's judgement than what strangers post to the internet.
Even when you have the murder weapon, the video tape, the taped confession, and 100 witnesses, you still go to trial. This is why newspapers always talk about "alleged murderers", even when they've got video tape showing the murder.
Yes, the newspapers talk about "alleged murderers". But the prosecution outright accuses them of doing it.
My best guess, after diving into the latest coverage, is that the Wiener underage sexting case showed prima facie evidence of mishandling of classified materials, and that Comey was threatened by leaks of that evidence from the team doing that investigation, and decided to get ahead of it.
Or maybe Comey is just responding to requests from the congressional committee for all related material?
Or maybe he's just trying to cover his be-hind so nothing will come back on him later?
(One blog said he's reacting to a push from within his own team, but didn't offer any evidence for the claim.)
At the very least, it establishes culpability and intent for Huma on several charges [...]
Is this fact or speculation? I haven't heard anything about it. (Do we even know what the new e-mails are?)
Your requested evidence and links have been supplied and you're oddly silent. My guess is that you've abandoned this thread and, like a hydra, are posting in new threads, "How come nobody can ever point out any evidence?"
Great. Thanks for linking something concrete, rather than the usual "Did Too!!!" claims most people post.
But notice some problems: First, this thread has gone from "It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws", which I challenged up-tread, to what Comey calls "potential violations" in your response.
Hurd: What does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it? Comey: It takes mishandling it and criminal intent. Hurd: And so an unauthorized server in a basement is not mishandling? Comey: No, there is evidence of mishandling here. This whole investigation is focussed on “is there sufficient evidence of intent.” Hurd: Was this the unanimous opinion with the FBI on your decision? Comey: The whole FBI wasn’t involved, but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists — Yes.
Seems as though the fact that classified information went through a non-classified server wasn't actually the question under investigation. Which brings us back to your link:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
So... it looks like we still don't have support for the claim that "It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws", or even one. The only way you can get there from here is to challenge the competency and/or honesty of Comey's entire team. (And to pre-empt those who will say "the 'Man' got to him" - if he's afraid of or sold out to Hillary, he sure was bold in trashing her during his announcement that he couldn't find anything to prosecute.)
I have never seen any evidence, only accusations. This is your chance to put me straight: Post a link to something that's both specific and correct.
But you know, the FBI investigated her and didn't find anything prosecutable. House Republicans have investigated her repeatedly and only succeeded in making themselves look like fools. The response from the disappointed right is to spin a conspiracy theory about her being too powerful to prosecute. A simpler explanation is that she simply hasn't done anything to go to jail for, let alone being "guilty of breaking multiple laws" as claimed up-thread.
But again, if the evidence is so readily available, how come no one can ever actually point it out? My best guess is right wingers don't understand the difference between accusation and evidence when it comes to things they really really really want to be true.
I'm guessing that any replies will, as with the previous ones, either try to change the subject or else provide assertions of guilt instead of evidence.
The pivoted-to-paranoia Trump is quick to forget that it was the media who made him a thing to begin with. Now that it's obvious that he can't compete he's adding them to his list of everyone else that he wants to blame for his shortcomings.
Don't know why Clinton would care. Wikileaks has become nothing more than a joke about someone who doesn't have anything on her trying to make people think he does. Every time Julian opens his mouth his credibility sinks further.
They should have let him continue. It's not like he was contributing anything except masses of data for the cool-aid drinkers to misrepresent. And discrediting himself in the process. Now those cool-aid drinkers will have something unfair to point to.
On a side note, I'll point out that he's been dumping on Hillary with impunity, but as soon as he got into what the banks consider their private business someone gave Ecuador a call.
We notice that you are vigorously trying to overcorrect for your simulation's liberal bias. If you are unhappy in your simulation you can submit petition KB3035583 to request being moved to another simulation with a different bias.
Do you have any sources? Election systems shouldn't be hackable. They should be networked but not on the internet. That's really poor planning.
I only saw the bit about 32 states on yesterday's CBS Evening News. They focused on Arizona, where IIRC the state voter registration database was breached (but supposedly not downloaded or tampered with).
They said there had been something like 190,000 attacks and probes, of which 11,000 considered serious. Unfortunately I didn't get the context for that (i.e., whether it was just election infrastructure, or what the time frame was).
You're right though - neither the election infrastructure nor any other part of our national infrastructure (public and private) should be exposed to attacks via the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint. -- Edward Tufte
Maybe the earthquakes caused the drilling.
That's impossible. We all know fossil fuel extraction is totally harmless and that Christ himself protects people from such things.
Who needs Jesus to protect people when you have Congress to protect the fossil fuel industry?
I'm sure everyone will give Trump the same benefit of the doubt that they give Hillary.
Why would I object to a warrant? If he thinks there is information relevant to something he has been tasked to investigate, his job requires him to ask for a warrant.
They panicked when they heard we were sending a "probe" to learn more about them.
Apropos of:
Or maybe Comey is just responding to requests from the congressional committee for all related material?
I mention that because, AIUI, it was a member of that committee that went public with it. (Or, more accurately, with a misrepresentation of what Comey's letter actually said.)
A couple of quick disagreements, plus some other remarks:
How about this - it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to adjudicate, at trial, with vigorous prosecution and defense, whether or not Hillary is guilty of breaking the law. Perhaps we can all agree on that.
Comey doesn't think there's enough evidence to take it to court.
If someone accuses you of (say) treason, you don't automatically go to court. The FBI decides whether the accuser has enough credibility to warrant an investigation, and if so, they use the investigation to decide whether there is enough evidence to take you to court. (Maybe an additional step with a Grand Jury - don't know how that works on Federal charges.)
Maybe she should have gone to court. Opinions differ. I'm more inclined to accept Comey's judgement than what strangers post to the internet.
Even when you have the murder weapon, the video tape, the taped confession, and 100 witnesses, you still go to trial. This is why newspapers always talk about "alleged murderers", even when they've got video tape showing the murder.
Yes, the newspapers talk about "alleged murderers". But the prosecution outright accuses them of doing it.
My best guess, after diving into the latest coverage, is that the Wiener underage sexting case showed prima facie evidence of mishandling of classified materials, and that Comey was threatened by leaks of that evidence from the team doing that investigation, and decided to get ahead of it.
Or maybe Comey is just responding to requests from the congressional committee for all related material?
Or maybe he's just trying to cover his be-hind so nothing will come back on him later?
(One blog said he's reacting to a push from within his own team, but didn't offer any evidence for the claim.)
At the very least, it establishes culpability and intent for Huma on several charges [...]
Is this fact or speculation? I haven't heard anything about it. (Do we even know what the new e-mails are?)
He's probably a Linux hacker. This domestic terrorism must be dealt with in the harshest way possible.
Make him use a Linux desktop?
Your requested evidence and links have been supplied and you're oddly silent. My guess is that you've abandoned this thread and, like a hydra, are posting in new threads, "How come nobody can ever point out any evidence?"
Bzzzzt!
Forgive me for doing something else between late evening and mid morning on a weekend.
Great. Thanks for linking something concrete, rather than the usual "Did Too!!!" claims most people post.
But notice some problems: First, this thread has gone from "It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws", which I challenged up-tread, to what Comey calls "potential violations" in your response.
And why is that? He knows the should-have-been-classified e-mails were on or sent through the server; isn't that direct evidence of "actual violations" rather than just "potential" ones? For this question it is useful to look at Comey's testimony to Congress about the FBI's decision not to prosecute, which I am pasting from Wikipedia (which has a link to their source):
Hurd: What does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it?
Comey: It takes mishandling it and criminal intent.
Hurd: And so an unauthorized server in a basement is not mishandling?
Comey: No, there is evidence of mishandling here. This whole investigation is focussed on “is there sufficient evidence of intent.”
Hurd: Was this the unanimous opinion with the FBI on your decision?
Comey: The whole FBI wasn’t involved, but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists — Yes.
Seems as though the fact that classified information went through a non-classified server wasn't actually the question under investigation. Which brings us back to your link:
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
So... it looks like we still don't have support for the claim that "It's clear that Hillary is guilty of breaking multiple laws", or even one. The only way you can get there from here is to challenge the competency and/or honesty of Comey's entire team. (And to pre-empt those who will say "the 'Man' got to him" - if he's afraid of or sold out to Hillary, he sure was bold in trashing her during his announcement that he couldn't find anything to prosecute.)
I have never seen any evidence, only accusations. This is your chance to put me straight: Post a link to something that's both specific and correct.
But you know, the FBI investigated her and didn't find anything prosecutable. House Republicans have investigated her repeatedly and only succeeded in making themselves look like fools. The response from the disappointed right is to spin a conspiracy theory about her being too powerful to prosecute. A simpler explanation is that she simply hasn't done anything to go to jail for, let alone being "guilty of breaking multiple laws" as claimed up-thread.
But again, if the evidence is so readily available, how come no one can ever actually point it out? My best guess is right wingers don't understand the difference between accusation and evidence when it comes to things they really really really want to be true.
I'm guessing that any replies will, as with the previous ones, either try to change the subject or else provide assertions of guilt instead of evidence.
No, I assert that people shouldn't be subject to a court of law when there's not any evidence to support it.
Everyone's so sure she's "guilty of breaking multiple laws". How come nobody can ever point out any evidence?
Yes, that's a law. Now demonstrate that she violated it.
Ok, I'll bite... which laws has she broken?
Wikipedia says it's executive producer + writer.
The pivoted-to-paranoia Trump is quick to forget that it was the media who made him a thing to begin with. Now that it's obvious that he can't compete he's adding them to his list of everyone else that he wants to blame for his shortcomings.
Don't know why Clinton would care. Wikileaks has become nothing more than a joke about someone who doesn't have anything on her trying to make people think he does. Every time Julian opens his mouth his credibility sinks further.
Wild speculation from a crazy guy? Thanks Slashdot.
Slashdot is becoming the People Magazine of tech.
I could do without all the stories about what tech billionaires, tech crackpots, and tech billionaire-crackpots think.
Not to mention the split in governors and state legislators.
LoL. Someone doesn't have the most basic understanding of how the USA works.
They should have let him continue. It's not like he was contributing anything except masses of data for the cool-aid drinkers to misrepresent. And discrediting himself in the process. Now those cool-aid drinkers will have something unfair to point to.
On a side note, I'll point out that he's been dumping on Hillary with impunity, but as soon as he got into what the banks consider their private business someone gave Ecuador a call.
If running combustion backwards was energy efficient, they could create a perpetual motion machine.
Respected Avatar or NPC,
We notice that you are vigorously trying to overcorrect for your simulation's liberal bias. If you are unhappy in your simulation you can submit petition KB3035583 to request being moved to another simulation with a different bias.
Sincerely,
The Operators
Do you have any sources? Election systems shouldn't be hackable. They should be networked but not on the internet. That's really poor planning.
I only saw the bit about 32 states on yesterday's CBS Evening News. They focused on Arizona, where IIRC the state voter registration database was breached (but supposedly not downloaded or tampered with).
They said there had been something like 190,000 attacks and probes, of which 11,000 considered serious. Unfortunately I didn't get the context for that (i.e., whether it was just election infrastructure, or what the time frame was).
You're right though - neither the election infrastructure nor any other part of our national infrastructure (public and private) should be exposed to attacks via the internet.
The should have released this stuff when she was running against Bernie.
Everybody knew (and still knows) she's in bed with Wall Street. That was probably the main issue that let Bernie get to the populist/left side of her.
She changed her tune to neutralize that advantage, but no one seriously believes she's going to get tough on Wall Street.
This is more non-scandal in search of a headline. But everyone should have forseen that as soon as they saw "Wikileaks".